Subject:
|
Re: PLEASE fix links
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:24:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> Going against W3 standards isn't the brightest idea, it isolates you.
Which W3 standard does it go against? I'm not aware of any. RFC 1738 is
vague on the issue.
RFC 1738 says that space characters are not valid HTTP URL components;
lexical scanners are therefore supposed to halt a URL production when they
read a space character. (Other characters can also demarcate the end of
a URL.)
RFC 1738 also says that in some cases, extra whitespace may need to be added
to break long URLs across lines, and that the whitespace should be ignored
(e.g., not considered part of the URL itself) when extracting the URL.
However, under this recommended scheme, the format suggested by RFC 1738
was <URL:http://xxx>, not <http://xxx>.
So the behavior of <http://xxx yyy> is not really well defined in RFC 1738,
but if taken strictly, only the http://xxx portion should be considered the
URL by a parser. Back in 1999, when FTX was devised (as a compromise for
backward compatibility with legacy clients), the ambiguity was rarely a
problem because most clients at the time hadn't adopted < > demarcation.
In fact, MSIE at the time was so poorly behaved that it parsed the trailing
angle bracket as part of the URL, which was clearly verboten by RFC 1738.
If FTX were being redesigned from scratch today, this would definitely have
to be rethought.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | PLEASE fix links
|
| Can someone PLEASE fix the formatting for links in posts? While it may work for FTX, it SUCKS in SeaMonkey/Mozilla/Thunderbird. Example: I'm reading from Tbird, and a post by someone has the following link: (URL) Mirror 4,> (all on one line). (...) (18 years ago, 17-Feb-07, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
